FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
AI can summarise a trial bundle in minutes, but a summary that misses or misdescribes evidence becomes counsel's own preparation error. Bundles also contain the most confidential material in a case, so where it is processed matters as much as what comes back.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
Barristers may use AI to summarise bundles, build chronologies, index exhibits and digest transcripts. The BSB's AI guidance says AI errors include missing the key issues, and rC20 keeps responsibility for preparation with counsel. Uploading a solicitor's documents to a third-party tool engages CD6 and rC15 and is treated as outsourcing under rC86, so the tool's terms, data location and deletion rules must be checked. A preparation failure caused by a flawed summary is usually treated as counsel's negligence under BMIF cover; a data leak raises separate cyber questions.
Common uses include a first-pass summary of each witness statement, a chronology drawn from correspondence, a list of documents relevant to each issue, a digest of a long hearing transcript and a cross-reference between pleadings and evidence. Done well, this frees time for analysis. The weakness is that a summary is only as good as what the tool read and chose to keep. Scanned documents, handwritten notes, tables and images may be skipped or misread, and a tool will not usually tell you what it left out.
The BSB's AI guidance links preparation to CD7 (competent standard of work) and rC20 (personal responsibility and own judgement). It warns that AI errors go beyond citations to missing the key issues. Bundles are supplied by the instructing solicitor in confidence, so CD6 and rC15 apply when they go into a tool, and rC86, including rC86.3.b, treats an AI tool as outsourcing: the confidentiality and data processing terms must be adequate and counsel stays responsible. The guidance's governance points apply directly: check whether data leaves the UK, how prompts and uploads are deleted, whether there is an audit log and what happens to the data if the vendor fails.
The BSB says free, publicly available tools are "unlikely" to meet the confidentiality conditions. In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal said uploading confidential documents to an open AI tool places them in the public domain. Some instructing solicitors set their own rules on what counsel may do with their documents, so it is sensible to check the instructing firm's position before using any tool on its bundle. Our page on free AI tools and confidentiality covers privilege in more depth.
Illustrative: counsel uses an AI tool to summarise a 2,000-page trial bundle for a contract dispute. A scanned file note recording an oral variation is not read properly and does not appear in the summary or chronology. Counsel does not put the point to the opposing witness, the judge finds no variation was agreed, and the client later learns the note was in the bundle all along. The client's claim alleges that counsel failed to prepare properly.
Similar risks arise in AI review of criminal disclosure and with AI notes of conferences.
A court or client will usually treat a missed document as counsel's preparation error, regardless of whether a tool produced the summary. That is a civil liability claim of the kind the BSB minimum terms require BMIF to cover: at least £500,000 each and every claim, defence costs in addition, and no AI exclusion. A confidentiality breach is different. The BSB's PI page says the minimum terms cover third-party loss, for example from a cyber incident, but do not require first-party cyber cover, so breach response costs may need a separate policy. See where cyber and PI cover divide.
Apex arranges PI for barristers. A broker can explain how your BMIF cover and any cyber policy divide responsibility for preparation errors and data incidents. More on the AI at the Bar hub.
Only to a tool whose terms protect confidentiality and whose data handling you have checked. The BSB says free public tools are unlikely to meet the confidentiality conditions, and treats AI tools as outsourcing under rC86. Check the instructing solicitor is content too.
Usually it will be treated as yours. rC20 makes professional judgement personal, and the BSB guidance warns that AI can miss key issues. Courts and clients look at what was in the bundle, not at what the tool reported.
The minimum terms cover third-party liability, which can include claims arising from a cyber incident, but they do not require first-party cyber cover. Costs such as forensic investigation or notification may need a separate cyber policy.
It is good practice, and rC19 points to telling clients where AI materially affects the service. Solicitors may have their own policies on third-party tools, so agreeing the approach at the outset avoids disputes later.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
